alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8136)

#### H. W. Robinson *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 713826; 713900.

(Decided July 24, 1952)

*Barnes, Richardson*<fe *Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise and issues covered by the above-entitled appeals to reappraisement are similar in all material respects to the merchandise and issues involved in *F. W. Woolworth Co.*v. *United States,*Reapt. Dec. 8069.

> *444IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Belgium, for consumption in Belgium, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value, less the amount added under duress to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases, plus 4%% transmission tax and that there was no higher export value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in *F. W. Woolworth Co.*v. *United States,*Reapt. Dec. 8069, be incorporated herein and the instant appeals to reappraisement submitted on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the amounts added under duress to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases, plus *4}{*per centum transmission tax.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 12
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
Jostens, Inc. and subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                           Six months        Year
                                                           Years ended                        ended         ended
                                       -------------------------------------------------   -----------     -------
(Unaudited)                            December 30   January 1    January 2    January 3   December 28     June 30
Dollars in thousands                       2000        2000          1999        1998          1996          1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Earnings
Income from continuing operations
before income taxes                      $  2,160     $ 74,659     $ 83,520     $ 93,383     $     26     $ 87,479

Interest expense
(excluding capitalized interest)           60,252        7,486        7,026        6,866        4,330        9,403

Portion of rent expense under
long-term operating leases
representative of an interest factor        1,121        1,483        1,233        2,133        1,070        2,103

                                         --------     --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
Total earnings                           $ 63,533     $ 83,628     $ 91,779     $102,382     $  5,426     $ 98,985
                                         ========     ========     ========     ========     ========     ========

Fixed charges
Interest expense
(including capitalized interest)           60,252        7,887        7,729        6,866        4,330        9,403

Portion of rent expense under
long-term operating leases
representative of an interest factor        1,121        1,483        1,233        2,133        1,070        2,103

                                         --------     --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
Total fixed charges                      $ 61,373     $  9,370     $  8,962     $  8,999     $  5,400     $ 11,506
                                         ========     ========     ========     ========     ========     ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges            1.0          8.9         10.2         11.4          1.0          8.6
</TABLE>
----

Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Bellantone v Court of Auditors

(Case F-85/06)

(2006/C 237/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gerardo Bellantone (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff of the European Court of Auditors in Grade A*8, was appointed as a probationary official in Grade A*5, without his agreement being sought beforehand.

In his application, the applicant maintains that the defendant's conduct amounts to breaches of contractual and non-contractual duties. He alleges infringement of the Code of good administrative conduct for the staff of the European Court of Auditors, infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, as well as infringement of the general principles of the law of the public service relating to sound administration, legitimate expectations and the retention of acquired rights.

----
No. 51363.

#### Protests 759056-G, etc., of W. J. Bush & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 51662.

#### Protests 11838-K, etc., of J. A. Deknatel & Son, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of beads similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1020). In accordance therewith the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1503, as modified by T. D. 49458, was sustained.
22.01 Process a Card Payment - Process Payment
<PAGE 1>

                                                             EXHIBIT 3


                  NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORP.
                         AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                  -------------------------------------------

                     ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BY-LAWS


     The following documents of Navistar International Transportation
Corp. are incorporated herein in those executed and conformed copies of
this report provided to the Securities and  Exchange Commission, the New
York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Stock Exchange and the Pacific Stock
Exchange.

     3.1  Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Navistar
          International Transportation Corp. effective October 27, 1995,
          filed as Exhibit 3.1 on Annual Report on Form 10-K dated
          October 31, 1996, which was filed on January 26, 1996,
          Commission File No. 1-5236.

     3.2  The By-Laws of Navistar International Transportation Corp.
          effective February 14, 1995, filed as Exhibit 3.2 on Annual
          Report on Form 10-K dated October 31, 1996 which was filed
          on January 26, 1996, on Commission File No. 1-5236. 




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 















                                     E-1
# Proposed Crosswalk

IRC Handout 07/20/2017

# List of all USSGLs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE : CIVIL ACTION

INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., : NO. 05-5368

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

ARNOLD LINCOW, D.O., et al., :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2014, upon 

consideration of Defendant Richard Mintz’s Motion to Mark 

Judgment Satisfied (ECF No. 1150) and Plaintiffs’ response 

thereto (ECF No. 1151), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Surreply Brief (ECF No. 

1155) is GRANTED; and

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Mark Judgment Satisfied is 

DENIED. 

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

Case 2:05-cv-05368-ER Document 1158 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 1
18

**2**

**2**
No. 55896.

protests 125192-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### A. Anderson et al. *v.*United States,

*322Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the shells involved in Abstracts 55389 and 50357, the claim for free entry under paragraph 1738 was sustained. Other items stipulated to be the same as the articles involved in Abstract 52477 were held dutiable at 33}<s percent under paragraph 412.
| §   | This Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| §   | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial position and results of operations of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. as of and for the periods presented. |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |  /s/ Cynthia A. Mahl                             |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Cynthia A. Mahl                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|   | Executive Vice President/Chief Financial                                                                                                                                                          |
|   | Officer                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|   | May 16, 2011                                                                                                                                                                                      |
#### Jessie WHATLEY, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 99-7171.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 4, 2001.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of Jessie Whatley’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 1 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 2 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 3 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 4 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 5 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 6 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 7 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 8 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 9 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 10 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 11 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 12 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 13 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 14 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 15 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 16 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 17 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 18 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 19 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 20 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 21 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 22 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 23 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 24 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 25 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 26 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 27 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 28 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 29 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 30 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 31 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 32 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 33 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 34 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 35 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 36 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 37 of 38
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-2 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 38 of 38
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 4405** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JOVAN MARQUELL MCLAUGHLIN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. ( 3:08

- cr - 00147

- RJC

- 1 )

Submitted : January 26, 2017 Decided: February 7, 2017

Before GREGORY , Chief Judge , and MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Roderick G. Davis, LAW OFFICE OF RODERICK G. DAVIS, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carol ina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jovan Marquell McLaughlin appeals the judgment r evoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 12 months imprisonment. On appeal , McLaughlin alleges that the district court erred by denying his motion to continue his revocation hearing so that he
could receive a competency hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) (2012) . For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a continuance. United States v. Williams , 445 F.3d 724, 7 38

- 39 (4th Cir. 2006). Whether reasonable cause exists to hold a hearing under § 4241(a) “ is a question left to the sound
discretion of the district court. ” United States v. Bernard , 708 F.3d 583, 592 (4th Cir. 2013). We find no reversible error by the district court in declining to continue McLaughl in ’s revocation hearing to permit McLaughlin ’s evaluation under
§ 4241. The district court perceived McLaughlin’s behavior was a product of his defiance and adherence to Moorish Nation alist ideals, rather than any mental instability or inability to
understand his revocation proceedings . This was well within the
discretion of the district court

. Bernard , 708 F

. 3d at 592 ; s ee Unit ed States v. James , 328 F.3d 953, 954 (7th Cir. 2003) (explaining that Moorish N ationals believe that they “ need obey only those laws mentioned in an ancient treaty between the
United States and Morocco ” ).3 Accordingly, we affirm , the district court ’ s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit      32.2**

|  | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                             |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|  /s/ Wayne              L. Schoonmaker |   |   |        |
| Principal              Accounting Officer        |   |   |        |
|                                                  |   |   |        |
| Dated: March 24, 2008                            |   |   |   |

----
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 36 (Friday, February 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8149-8150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3130]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Correction of Notice of Deletion

    In the document appearing on page 3782, FR Doc E7-1271, Procurement 
List Additions and Deletions, in the issue of Friday, January 26, 2007, 
in the first column, the Committee published deletion of a service for 
Grounds Maintenance, Marine Corps Air Station, San Diego, CA. This 
notice corrects that deletion of the service to read as follows: for 
Grounds Maintenance, Marine Corps Air Station, Bachelors Quarters Only, 
San Diego, CA. The other deletions announced in the Notice

[[Page 8150]]

remain the same. The effective date of February 25, 2007 remains the 
same.

Sheryl D. Kennerly,
Director, Information Management.
[FR Doc. E7-3130 Filed 2-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of (10th Cir. Cir. R.

36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 11 2001

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES MARION GUSTIN, SR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

RON WARD,

Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 00-6291 & 00-6356

(D.C. No. CIV-97-668-C)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HENRY , PORFILIO , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases

are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
1 Gustin separately appealed the district court’s dismissal of his habeas

petition as well as the later denial of his COA request. This court consolidated

the appeals.

-2-

James Gustin, a state prisoner convicted of first-degree murder, seeks

a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his

§ 2254 habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (providing that no appeal

may be taken from an order denying relief in a § 2254 petition unless the

petitioner-appellant first obtains a COA by making “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right”). 1

Gustin alleges various constitutional violations arising from the

determination that he was competent at the time he stood trial. This court has

reviewed the request for a COA, Gustin’s appellate brief, the magistrate judge’s

recommendation, the district court’s order, and the entire record before us. 

Our review demonstrates that Gustin’s § 2254 petition is not deserving of further

proceedings, debatable among jurists of reason, or subject to different resolution

on appeal. Gustin’s request for a COA is denied. This consolidated appeal is

accordingly DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio 

Circuit Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HERMAN ORLANDO HELLAMS : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

GERALD ROZUM, et al. : NO. 05-3354

O R D E R

J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.,

AND NOW, this day of , 2005, upon

careful and independent consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and after review

of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart, IT IS

ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.

3. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

 

J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.

Case 2:05-cv-03354-JCJ Document 8 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6308

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALAND TRACY HALL, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-92, CA-01-4-7) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 7, 2001Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aland Tracy Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Aland Tracy Hall appeals the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion for failure to obtain authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000); and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed therecord and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hall , Nos. CR-94-92; CA-01-4-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 5 and 24, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN J. BUCKSHAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMTRAK, THE HOSPITAL AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE

PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION

CENTER AUTHORITY, and

PHILADELPHIA MUNICIPAL COURT

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 02-4450

MEMORANDUM / ORDER

July __, 2002

This court has received an application to proceed in forma pauperis from pro se plaintiff

John J. Buckshaw. The application discloses that Mr. Buckshaw is in possession of $50 in cash

and that his income from his advertising business is only enough to meet his expenses. The

application therefore demonstrates that Mr. Buckshaw is unable to pay the filing fees for this

case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

is GRANTED.

____________________________________

Pollak, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04450-LP Document 2 Filed 07/30/2002 Page 1 of 1